Stuff

The latest ICM poll for the Guardian has topline figures are CON 42%(nc), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 13%(+1), GRN 5%(+1). It was conducted over the weekend and changes are from a fortnight ago, before Theresa May’s Brexit speech. The sixteen point Tory lead is similar to YouGov’s poll straight after May’s speech, and both show a modest increase in the Tory lead (though the actual level of Tory support is unchanged in ICM). Martin Boon says there are some more Brexit questions to come later…

This doesn’t auger well for the UK Government working with the devolved nations.

“The UK Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs cancelled a crucial meeting with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish environment ministers despite the “EU Transition Forum” being a joint exercise by all four administrations.”

Regarding today’s judgement on the Sewell convention not being worth the paper it’s printed on. During the passage of the Scotland Act SNP put forward amendments to put Sewell on statutory footing. All amendments were voted down by Labour & Tory. Although, it’s short term bad news longer term it’s another step in what now seems an exorcible path to Scottish independence.

It is as if Tory / Labour were disappointed with the No vote & have been pushing Scotland to a second vote. September 2018 is my guess. Probably not announced until the spring of that year.

For those taking comfort in the polls – remember the SNP have the most recent polls the YouGov one from last week from which only a couple of questions have been released. On the economy a large majority believe Brexit will make Scotland worse off and Scotland is if anything slightly more Remain than in the EURef. Predicting a referendum almost two years out is clearly error prone.

But my feeling is the course is set and there is an inevitability about it.

Sept 2018 seems a reasonable guess, although I’d put June or October as more likely (Sept is in the middle of conference season). As soon as the Brexit vote result came in, I was predicting that the 2020 elections would be for the first independent Scottish government, and that still seems on track.

Sea Change,
“The EU as a trading bloc is becoming smaller in terms of world trade.”

So the world economy is getting bigger, what of it? The EU has always been a protected trading zone designed to boost the economies of those inside it. The world may be bigger, but it isnt any more friendly. The UK and EU must expect to suffer relative decline as undeveloped countries do develop, that is mathematically inevitable.

Millie.
“I understand that a poll by Labour Leave shows UKIP ahead in Stoke with 35%. Labour on 25% and the Tories on 10%.”

So bad news for the conservatives then? Their serious rival UKIP is beating them badly? All this brexit stuff is designed to wipe out UKIP, but if that is correct it isnt working.

Couper2802,
“It is as if Tory / Labour were disappointed with the No vote & have been pushing Scotland to a second vote.”

An interesting viewpoint. Getting rid of Scotland would solve the problem of the SNP in westminster, which in coalition with other parties are currently the biggest threat to an entrenched conservative majority. This was avoided at the last election by the conservatives driving a wedge between them, alleging an SNP coalition would give the SNP control of the Uk. Plus no Scotland means no need for the Uk subsidy of Scotland. Did I just see a report about massive closure costs for exhausted north sea oil installations?

The government has difficult problems with Scotland and Ireland over Brexit. Their independence would solve these. Finessing giving the SNP what they want could perversely be a good move for England. We could even end up with land border access to the EU. British banks moving to Edinburgh, how convenient.

Graham,
“May will not grant another Referendum in the course of this Parliament – nor should she.”

Technically this might be within her authority, but in reality the position is that if Scotland wants independence, it will get it. Think Brexit.

I thought the PM had already made it plain – perhaps not? – that no further Scottish referendum would be held ‘in the heat of Brexit’ as it were, as passions run too high at times like that, and it would be far too early to have a referendum knowing the impact of Brexit on UK and / or just Scotland before the 2020s at least.

Given that the only conceivable basis for agreeing to another referendum so soon on a question that would normally only be put to the people once in a generation at most, is the changes caused by leaving the EU, the only conceivable fair and rational time to have it based on any accurate evaluation, is after we have actually left and had time to find out the initial impacts and determine likely longer term ones. It’s all guesswork prior to that, so no logic at all for Indyref2 any earlier.

Of course, it’s possible that we could have a different UK government elected in 2020 who [presumably cares less about the Union and] allows an Indyref2 to go ahead quickly in spite of it not being sound or rational.

@Candy – Thanks for the clarification. It confirms you were being a little loose with the facts.

The article explains thus – “Proportional sharing requires NAFTA members to make available the current share of energy exports to other member countries even when facing energy shortages at home. Strictly speaking, “making energy available” is not a mandatory exporting obligation — but it might as well be. Canadians could theoretically buy up all the Canadian oil or natural gas made available for export, but buyers of crude oil and wholesale natural gas are not ordinary Canadians or small businesses. They are huge petro-corporations, most of them foreign owned and controlled, operating on a profit basis. Their buying decisions have nothing to do with supplying Canadians with our own energy. Unlike most major oil- and natural gas–producing countries, Canada has no government-owned energy firm to protect its citizens’ energy and ecological interests.”

Canada gets ‘first dibs’ on whatever it wants, but NAFTA members have a protected share of whatever is exported. Canada could set up a state energy company to buy up oil for security purposes, and limit exports, but chooses not to. Nafta is by no means perfect, but the US only has rights to a proportion of whatever is left for export, not a right to grab whatever oil it wants.

Bit early to call Stoke Central for UKIP. Labour haven’t even selected a candidate yet. It could be a popular, long-serving councillor with a penchant for Brexit for all we know.

Plus whereas before we had shy Tories, I wouldn’t be surprised if Labour supporters are now the shy ones in the polls. UKIP supporters tend to be more loud and confident about it whereas on the day a lot of dyed in the wool but currently shy Labour voters may turn out.

Mike Smithson [email protected] 2h2 hours ago
More
How the Express is reporting the Stoke central “poll” which wasn’t. I’m told it was Facebook survey of 179 people
_______
The article in the Express was written by David Maddox who used to scribble for the Scotsman news paper. No improvements in his journalism I see if Mike Smithy’s tweet is correct.

Your post is a fine example of fantasy alternative facts – can you provide the source for May’s position? I really didn’t expect such made up nonsense on UKPR.

For the record May has never threatened not to allow an second indyref. And in fact politically she couldn’t and would be totally ridiculous trying to prevent Scotland leaving one union while negotiating exit from another.

Also a little commented on fact that Scottish Parliament can call advisory referendums whenever they want. The indyref was a binding referendum hence the Edinburgh agreement. EURef was advisory

Danny
I will take the spirit of your comments rather than argue with the detail and say Agreed.

Umm.. If you read back what I wrote, I said the Americans got first dibs on Canadian exports, which is exactly right. I said nothing about Canadians using their own oil.

Canada can’t decide to export all it’s oil to China at the Brent price, they have to make oil available to the Americans at the NYMEX price. If NAFTA is torn up, a part of American energy security is lost and the prices they pay would rise.

It is important to get these facts right, and it would really help if you actually read what I wrote about who was getting first dibs, as it would clear up your confusion…

@Please stop fibbing. You said – “P.S. Regarding the Canadian oil – under NAFTA rules the US gets first dibs on Canadian oil, and the oil currently moves into the US via truck and train.”

You didn’t mention exports, and even said that Canada wants the new pipeline so it can export it’s oil to the US.

If you want to make a point, make it, but please don’t retrospectively try to change what you wrote. You are often quite unclear in the way you post, which is one of the reasons that people pull you up frequently.

I actually understand your point now, and it makes sense – but you didn’t mention ‘exports’, so that’s why your original post didn’t seem right.

Canadian oil purchased by Americans is oil EXPORTED by Canadians to Americans.

You appear to be in the confused state of believing that Americans are Canadians!!!

It should have been obvious to a normal person that Americans getting first dibs on Canadian oil is about Americans getting first dibs of exports of Canadian oil. Cause they are two different countries, geddit?

I noticed you made similar errors when I was talking about EU share of world trade – you went haring off in another direction having failed to understand context, and Sea Change had to put you right.

@Candy – that isn’t remotely true. American companies can buy oil in Canada and sell it to the Canadians. You said something very similar yourself. For example, Chevron take UK oil from the North Sea and refine in in the UK to sell under their Texaco brand here and elsewhere. I would have thought that would be a fairly obvious element of the global oil industry.

I don’t have a problem with what you now say – you clarified a point that was confusing and that when read logically didn’t make sense. Instead of simply accepting you had omitted the word ‘exports’ from the original post, you initially claimed that you had, and then fell back on the old defence of ‘you should have known what I meant’. It’s all been a bit of a waste of time, when simply correcting an omission would have been far easier.

In terms of the trade figures, on that one I should have been a little clearer. I was well aware that you were talking about proportional shares of world trade, but as others pointed out, seeing mature economies lose trade share as others develop is about as normal as seeing people stop breathing when they die. You could equally have mentioned that from the 1980’s to 2010 the US share of world exports fell by around 25%, for example. This doesn’t really tell us much other than developing economies are in a period of rapid growth.

I was trying to point out that in gross terms, EU trade had done really rather well recently, and and the use of the word ‘shrivelling’ could have been miscontrued as suggesting the EU wasn’t doing very well in general, rather than just as a relative measure, and that there isn’t very much to get excited about with the relative comparison as this is a nature part of global economic development. I should have explained that more clearly, but didn’t bother as others had covered the issue.

I hope this clears that up, and I’m now going to move on from this dead thread.

I very much hesitate to disagree with Anthony but while the local newspaper in Stoker is undoubtedly The Sentinel, my understanding is that its owner – LOCAL NEWS – and all its titles were bought out by Trinity Mirror just over a year ago.
Check with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34660516